Lev, I think you're misunderstanding what Basilisk is saying. He's not saying that the outcome with the highest numerical probability is what should happen, all the time, no questions asked. On paper, a corvette mauling a battleship and getting away with it is not the most probable outcome, but it's possible, given certain actions on the part of the two parties. RPing isn't about everyone coming together to make sure that your characters do what you want them to do. It's about making interesting characters and throwing them in a world, and then seeing what happens. If the path for your character is predetermined, write a story. If your plan is flexible enough to adapt to monkey-wrenches thrown into it by the world, by the GM, and by your fellow players, then play an RPG and enjoy it. Sometimes this means that your character will suffer realistic consequences for their actions. If you're fighting someone and put your hand over their mouth, they might bite you. If you declare war on someone and they have nuclear missiles, they might nuke you. If you rush at twenty Stormtroopers wielding nothing but a box-cutter and a manic grin... ah, who am I kidding, Stormtroopers can't aim to save their lives.
Yes, but as a player, the goal is still to ensure everyone has the most fun. Hence -
There will be a mushroom cloud. Let me put it that way. They made the mistake of messing with a character of mine who had the resources to deal with them and they made themselves a big enough threat to him that he decided overkill was the only kill to apply in the situation. I have no sympathy. They want to live? Tell their stories? Then don't screw with someone who has the firepower to take them down.
- the scenario here was easily adaptable to a situation. I could go on and repeat myself, but allow me to quote from a gaming article done by Rich Burlew, writer of the Order of Stick webcomic -
"However, it also creates a logjam where neither side wants to back down. The key to resolving this problem is to decide to react differently. You are not your character, and your character is not a separate entity with reactions that you cannot control. I can't tell you how many times I've heard a player state that their character's actions are not under their control. Every decision your character makes is your decision first. It is possible and even preferable for you to craft a personality that is consistent but also accommodating of the characters the other players wish to play.
When you think about a situation, ask yourself, "Is this the only way my character can react to this?" Chances are, the answer is, "No." Try to refine your character so that you can deal with situations that conflict with your alignment/ethos without resorting to ultimatums, threats, etc. This will often mean thinking in terms of compromise and concession to your fellow players, or at the very least an agreement to disagree.
Here's another example: In a campaign I DM'd, the party's bard lifted a magical sword behind the back of the party's Lawful Good monk. The monk had basically decided that the bodies of several fallen knights would be buried without looting, and rather than argue, the bard just grabbed the sword. The bad news was, the sword was cursed; it was the blade that had belonged to a ghost that roamed the castle, and whenever the bard drew it, the ghost materialized and attacked him (and only him). Eventually, the bard 'fessed up that he had stolen the sword. The monk (and the monk's player) became furious, and declared that he could no longer travel with the bard. Either the bard had to leave, or he would. It became a huge argument between characters and players, and it was entirely unnecessary. The monk did not have to react with an ultimatum; the monk did not even have to be angry, no matter what his alignment was. The bard had already suffered the misfortune of having his Charisma drained by the ghost repeatedly; the monk could have chosen (for example) to lecture the bard on how his theft had brought him nothing but misery. He chose to create player conflict when it was just as easy to not."
Don't lecture me about story structure, I've already told you I don't think it has any place in the RPG's I play. I resent the overuse of fantasy myself, but I don't expect every RPG to conform to that standard, I don't play the RPG's that don't conform to it. Simple-as. I'll approve it, but I won't play it. It's boring and frusterating to me.
Ah. So realism means unlikely things can't happen. Clearly, the fact that the last true bayonet charge in military history failed is evi-.
Fancy that. I don't demand the guy with the gun always beat the fellow with the knife, but the fellow with knife is going to need to be very smart and actually earn his victory. It shouldn't happen because you hope it'll happen. It should happen because the fellow with the knife was clever and quick. Otherwise it's just pointless. Victory is worth nothing if there was never any chance of defeat. But, ninety-nine times out of one hundred, the man with the gun will win. Because he has a gun. If you want your character to be the exception. Work for it. Don't expect the man with the gun to hold back.
Nor should the man with the gun hold back against the man charging with the knife. You really shouldn't be attacking the man with the gun unless you're going full on Most Dangerous Game on him.
To stress again - the use of realism should never diminish the RPG's fun. If constant "realistic" behavior by a PC or the GM leads to problems with other characters, though, that's when the issue begins.
Hardly. RPGs are simulated worlds in my view. I don't care what's dramatic, I don't care what people hope happens. My characters, if it suits their personality, will fight to win. Just like people do in real life. If you manage to beat them, congrats. If you don't, then I'm sorry you weren't clever or quick enough, but I'm not holding back on your account.
Not all people fight to win. People have dozens of things that motivate them, and winning no matter what is just one motivation. Just because every character you write needs to win doesn't mean every other character or person does. Frankly, creating a character whose only goal is a detriment to the RPG because it makes one characters goals more important than those of another.
We once discussed how you disliked characters who were written evil with their only goal being to cause trouble for others. The "play to win" style of roleplaying is the exact same; to accomplish your goals, others are almost guaranteed to suffer. Other motivations are far more acceptable. Perhaps the character wants to redeem themselves for some action in the past, and the quest is for atonement?
Not all characters are clever and quick, and not all are playing just to win. You shouldn't expect that they are, or take advantage of that fact.
Here's another thing I need you to clarify - your phrasing, and past displays, make the "beat them/not beat them" as clears "kill or be killed," which is again not a fun scenario. It means either total win or total loss. This is not a realistic point of view; things are never that cut and dry. Having a character willing to cut losses and allow enemies minor victories if it means having a favor or a future advantage in your hand makes a far more interesting character.
The critics loved ME 3. Besides, all I noted was how well it did. I made no claims of it being good. Where did you get that from?
You seem to be the confused one. I was saying, instead of using the catalyst as they did, the writers could have had the races of the galaxy pull off something clever to take out the Reapers rather then what we got.
Hmm. Most of the critics and reviewers I've looked over have had less than stellar things to say about it. Just a few people on the internet and one or two IRL friends. But we're getting kind of off topic here, I think. Let's just leave it at "Mass Effect 3 had a poorly written ending" and leave it at that, praying (or just hoping, if you're not the praying sort) that Dragon Age: Inquisition doesn't turn out the same way.
I'm starting to get a bit worried that we may be getting too caught up in this discussion, as fascinating as it may be. I remember getting into disputes once on an RPG planning thread, and the result was a flame war that lasted several months if not longer. Maybe I'm overreacting but I don't want that to happen again.
I'll ease your worry - if the argument picks up heavily or isn't done in like a day or two, I'll stand down completely no matter how far into it anything is. The exception is if someone gets the nerve to say 2012 was a great movie, because Roland Emmerich should be hung for that atrocity against cinema, science, characterization, logical sense or understanding of politics, and plot.
If you want an example of a movie so unrealistic I can't justify the first ten minutes of it, you have your example.
[font="'Comic Sans MS';color:#000000;"][font="'comic sans ms', cursive;"]No offense to anyone here, you can go on debating, but from what I've seen about the RPG itself and more related to that topic is this:[/font][/font]
[font="'Comic Sans MS';color:#000000;"][font="'comic sans ms', cursive;"]There's currently two options for style and set-up of the RPG: Have the tournament, perhaps with a few side-quests; or have an RPG that's actually set up to end, end spectacularly, and simply be finished when it finishes. [/font][/font]
[font="'Comic Sans MS';color:#000000;"][font="'comic sans ms', cursive;"]From gathering that, I've got an idea. [/font][/font]
[font="'Comic Sans MS';color:#000000;"][font="'comic sans ms', cursive;"](And yes, Canis, this is a little like the Ninjago RPG set-up. Atton, you'll probably recognize this as well.)[/font][/font]
[font="'Comic Sans MS';color:#000000;"] [/font]
[font="'Comic Sans MS';color:#000000;"][font="'comic sans ms', cursive;"]Perhaps the best thing to do would be to have the RPG set up like this: There's a main region or place, (The Smash Complex) where all/most of the characters would relax and casually brawl each other and such. Everyso often, perhaps when activity seems to be slowing down, a plot arc will start up and send a group or even all the characters flying off on a quest, which would be 'A-B-C-Finish'. Return to home, derp around and repeat. [/font][/font]
[font="'Comic Sans MS';color:#000000;"][font="'comic sans ms', cursive;"]That's mostly what I've gotten from what's been posted so far. [/font][/font]
[font="'Comic Sans MS';color:#000000;"] [/font]
[font="'Comic Sans MS';color:#000000;"][font="'comic sans ms', cursive;"]The other main suggestion/comment was basically whether or not to have characters from outside of just Smash, or Nintendo, or even video games. I personally think that it'd be an interesting idea, and I've already got an in-game reason for such things to happen. [/font][/font]
[font="'Comic Sans MS';color:#000000;"][font="'comic sans ms', cursive;"]Questions/Comments?[/font][/font]
Oh, but we are planning an RPG. It's an RPG where every player is a debater. The goal is to keep in character for a whole month straight of debates on a single subject, the first one being "Is this image real or fake - has science gone too far?"
Your best bet would be to start off with tournament and side quests. That way you can keep people active. Those not participating in a current fight could be out on the quests or getting involved in casual brawls... or trying to kill each other, I guess.
Oh, and here's an idea - what if you make it into a Valhalla like set up? The requirement for every character - they need to have died. Preferably in a completely awesome way. The only problem I see is that it could lead to some spoilers... people midway through the Harry Potter series might be a bit shocked to learn what happens on page 596.
So if I were to bring in a character like say... Snake Plissken, who happens to be a tough guy but has no superpowers or superstrength or anything, the dimension would somehow make him stand a chance against characters who have flame attacks and other such crazy powers?
Damage Reduction 50/-
-Toa Levacius Zehvor